The territorial slave policy; the Republican party; what the North has to do with slavery. Speech of Hon. Thomas D. Eliot, of Mass. Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 25, 1860

THE TERRITORIAL SLAVE POLICY; THE REPUBLICAN PARTY;
WHAT THE NORTH HAS TO DO WITH SLAVERY.

SPEECH

OF

HON. THOMAS D. ELIOT, OF MASS.

Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 25, 1860.

-o-

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the |
state ol the Union —

Mr. ELIOT said:

1 desire, Mr. Chairman, to address an argu-
ment to the Committee this morning on the slave
territorial policy of the present Administration.
I desire to speak upon that subject which, as
has been truly said by several gentlemen, draws
to itself all questions besides. And I wish to
speak to that particular phase of the question,
because it is one which must enter into the delib-
erations of the people, into the action of the
freemen of this land, North and South, during
the coming canvass for the Presidency. That
territorial slave policy is at conflict with the
theory of the Government and with the princi-
ples of the fathers ; and it ignores and discards
rights which have heretofore been recognised,
conceded, and acted upon, during the entire his-
tory of our National Government, down to the
Administration that preceded that of Mr. Bu-
chanan. Out of that policy, and as one necessary
result of it, the Republican party of this Union
ha3 sprung into existence.

To restrain slavery within its present limits ; to
keep it within the States whose laws recognise it;
to prevent its expansion ; to exclude it from the Ter-
ritories ; to keep it from being a blight upon the free
lands of the United States, is the confessed duty
of that party. And there are convincing reasons,
social, moral, and political, why that duty should
be performed. It was said here the other day,
by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Love,] that
so far as that question wa3 to be considered in
its political and in its moral aspects, it was fair-
ly a subject for discussion upon the floor of Con-
gress. But in the course of his argument, certain
facts were stated, and certain statistics given, to
which I desire, in the course of my remarks, to
call the attention of the Committee.

Mr. LOVE. I understand the gentleman to say
that I admitted that that question was properly
discussable in this House, in its moral and its
social relations.

Mr. ELIOT. Moral and political.
Mr. LOVE. I wish to correct the gentleman
in that respect. I did say then, and I do say
now, that it is proper and legitimate to discuss
that question politically here or elsewhere.

Mr. ELIOT. I said nothing about its social
aspects. I do not propose to discuss them. I
am willing, however, to discuss the question
upon either ground — social, moral, or political.

Mr. Chairman, this question now before the
American people, demanding adjustment, is one
of protection. If Mr. Jefferson could be heard

now in these Halls, his own words would echo
back to him, and he would declare it to be one
of protection to that life and liberty and pursuit
of happiness with which he boldly taught that
all men were endowed, as with inalienable
rights.

Whatever public interest calls for considera-
tion, whether it be one of revenue or of educa-
tion, of our relations with foreign nations, of
commerce between the States, of internal im-
provements, of national justice, of domestic
tranquillity, fpr common defence, or the promo-
tion of our general welfare, the same great ques-
tion faces us as we legislate, demanding discus-
sion and adjustment, as the condition of legisla-
tive action. From time to time, that question
has presented itself to the statesmen of this land,
in different forms, according to the exigencies,
real or supposed, of Southern interests ; for it is
a political truth that our history demonstrates,
that when one position or principle or policy has
been advocated and sustained and secured by
the political advocates of human slavery, a step
in advance has been forthwith taken, and, as
soon as taken, defended and insisted on, as
though the last doctrine advanced were the ver-
itable principle and policy of the fathers. Such
has been the Russian career of the slave power —
autocratic always — yielding nothing unless, by
seeming concession, a substantial vantage
ground for future attack was thereby secured.

It is now but about twenty years since first^in
Congress, an intimation was made, by legislative
resolution, that the slaveholder, under the pro-
tection of the Constitution, might carry his hu-
man chattels into the Territories of the Union,
in defiance of the action of Congress.

On the 19th of February, 18-17, Mr. Calhoun
offered in the Senate four resolutions, and they
are now the basis and the substance of the Dem-
ocratic creed.

The first three of those resolutions are as fol-
lows :

" Resolved, That the Territories of the United States belong
to the several states comprising this Union, and are held by
them as their joint and common property.

" Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent and repre-
sentative of the States of the Union, has no right to make
any law, or do any act whatever, that shall directly, or by
its effects, make any discrimination between the States of
\ this Union, by which any of them shall be deprived of its

full and equal right in any Torritory of the United Statos,
acquired or to be acquired.

'* Resolved, That the enactment of any Jaw which should
diroctly, or by its effects, deprive the citizens of, any of the
States of this Union from emigrating with their property into
any of the Territories of the United States, will make such
discrimination, and would therefore be a violation of the
Constitution, and the rights of the States from which such
citizens emigrated, and in dorogation of that perfect equality
which belongs to them as membors of this Union, and would
tend directly to subvort the Union itself."

Mr. Benton, upon the spot, condemned these
resolutions as a " string of abstractions ; " and
during the conversation that ensued between
him aud Mr. Calhoun, he said that Mr. Calhoun
must have known, from his whole course in pub-
lic life, that he never would "leave public busi-
ness to take up firebrands to set the world on
fire."

To-day, standing upon that bold and unheard-
of doctrine ; standing upon it as upon the broad
foundation of our liberties which the fathers
laid ; sustained by a false and partisan and law-
less declaration of certain men clothed with the
ermine of our highest judicial tribunal, the Pres-
ident of the United States declares to us, in his
message to the present Congress, that

" The right has been established of every citizen to take
his property of any kind, including slaves, into the common
Territories, belonging equally to all the Suites of the Confed-
eracy, and to have it protected there under the Federal Con-
stitution. Neither Congress, nor a Territorial Legislature,
nor any human power, has any authority to annul or to im-
pair this vested right."

And that is the political phase now assumed
by that question which demands adjustment by
the freemen of this Union.

If now we go back for a few years, it is easy
to see how the Southern Democratic party, sus-
tained by Northern friends under the lead of a
Northern President, and the false and treacherous
counsellings of a Northern Senator, have forced
into life, and combined into a solid and over-
powering organization, the Republican party of
the Union. Sir, during all the weary weeks that
preceded the organization of this House, while
the confusion of tongues prevailed, and our tor-
tured language was made the unnatural vehicle
of anathema and abuse against men who were
representing upon this floor the " sentiment" for
which the fathers contended — during all those
weeks, when the red hand of the South seemed
to be raised in menace against us, and the voice
of disunion, unchecked and applauded even,
echoed madly in these Halls, one great fact was
always recognised, the fact of this national power
which was tauntingly, but harmlessly, styled the
" Black " Republican party. If any man can pa-
tiently work his way through those harangues
"to the country" — where the main and con-
trolling end and aim appeared to be, not to con-
vince, but to inflame; not to persuade, but to
enrage constituencies already too much and too
wildly excited — he will be struck, as I was, who
heard them, with the manifest sense of national
greatness with which that Republican party had
impressed the Democracy of the South. It was
the premonition of coming defeat, and not the
" Helper book, " which lashed into fury the
champions of Southern slavery ; and yet, if a
constitutional majority, in a constitutional man-
ner and form, shall enable that political party to
inaugurate in these modern times an Adminis-
tration that shall claim to represent the policy
of Washington, and to carry out into effective

reality some of the ardent yearnings of the heart
of Jefferson, I apprehend that no man will rise
on this floor and say to U3 that a way will not
be found to meet the crisis according to the law
in such case provided.

Mr. Chairman, when the theory of Mr. Cal-
houn was becoming crystallized into a political
creed, the possibility of a Republican party be-
came a necessity. At that time, two great par-
ties— the Whig and the Democratic organiza-
tions— contended for political power ; and these
resolutions of Mr. Calhoun contributed greatly
to disquiet the public mind of the whole North.
The "firebrand" took effect. The millions of
men in the non-slaveholding States were con-
founded at the bold advance of the slave power.
Distinguished Democratic politicians perceived
at once that such new aggressions of the South
would make them all slaves, by a logical neces-
sity, if such doctrines were admitted as Demo-
cratic, and the party which announced them
should have power to vitalize them by legisla-
tive laws. In many of the Northern States, in
caucus and in Convention, resolutions were
adopted by both political parties, to the end that
the men enrolled under their banners who loved
freedom, and believed in its nationality ; who
dreaded the slave law and the slave trade, and
the institution they fostered ; and who believed
as Washington and his co-patriots, in the Senate
and in the field, at the South and at the North,
believed, that it must be restricted, and that it
ought to be abolished — to the end that such men
should be retained within their ranks, resolu-
tions were adopted declaring in advance the
substantial doctrines of our Republican party as
their true and accepted faith. For, Mr. Chair-
man, it was beginning to be felt that sober and
thinking men, who had not been politicians, were
getting to be alarmed. Third parties were be-
coming strong; and both the Whig party and
the Democratic party found it to be expedient,
for th iir own preservation, and to conciliate the
growing discontent among themselves, to put
upon the record their opinions upon subjects
that were assuming such alarming significance
in the popular mind.

Sir, if the newspapers of that period should be
consulted, it would be found that the Northern
Democrat of the straitest sect — brought up at
the feet of Gamaliel himself— in State Conven-
tion, would rival the Whig of most anti-slavery
proclivities in the art of framing resolutions in
defence of freedom. I do not stop to prove by
historic reference — it could not be done in the
hour you assign me — the truth of what I say.
But there are men now on this floor, Republican
Representatives, then belonging to both parties,
who can attest its truth. We were actors and ob-
servers, and I am speaking of what I know. Then
came the session of the compromises. Mr. Calhoun
had, three years before, denounced all compro-
mises. He did not believe in them, when principles
were involved. It would have been better for all
of us, perhaps, on both sides of the House, if some
of those measures, which together were styled the
compromises, had never become laws. But it
did at one time seem that the " conflict," so far
as it depended upon the action of the two con-
trolling parties in the country, was to be re-
pressed.

I do not mean to say, nor to permit it for a
moment to be supposed, that I approved of the
whole legislation of 1850, or of the subsequent
political action of either of those parties respect-
ing it. I speak now as an individual, and not
for auy party. There are different opinions and
various judgments here upon this side of the
House regarding it. The honorable gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Corwin] has taken occasion to
restate his approval of one of those measures,
known as the fugitive slave act, which were
placed as laws upon the statute books of Con-
gress while he was a distinguished member of
Mr. Fillmore's Cabinet. Other gentlemen have
stated, in more or less general phrase, their wil-
lingness to submit to what was done. I cannot,
as a legislator, assent to their opinions. What-
ever we may do, or whatever we may feel bound
not to do, as citizens, we stand here in Congress
clothed with higher power, and burdened with
different duties. I prefer the doctrine of Mr.
Buchanan, not the President, but the Senator.
I appeal from Mr. Buchanan in the White House
to Mr. Buchanan in the Senate. Hear what he
said, speaking upon the bank question, in the
Senate, in July, 1841:

'• Now, if it were not unparliamentary language, and if I
did not desire to treat all my friends on this [Whig] side of
the House with the respect which I feel for them, I would
say that the idea of the question having been settled so as to
bind the consciences of members of Congress, when voting on
the present bill, is ridiculous and absurd. If all the judges
and all the lawyers in Christendom had decided in the affirm-
ative, when the question is thus brought home to one as a
legislator, bound to vote for or against a new charter, upon
oath to support the Constitution, I must exercise my own judg-
ment. I would treat with profound respect the arguments
and opinions of judges and constitutional lawyers; but if,
after ail, they fail to convince me that the law was constitu-
tional, / should be guilty of perjury before high Heaven if I
voted in its favor.

"But even if the Judiciary lead settled the question, I
should never hold myself bound by their decision while act-
ing in a legislative character. Unlike the Senator from
Massachusetts, [Mr. Bates,! I shall never consent to place the
liberties of the people in the hands of any judicial tribunal.

" No man holds in higher esteem than I do the memory
of Chief Justice Marshall ; but I should never have consented to
malce even him the final arbiter between the Government and the
people of this country on questions of constitutional liberty. ."

My own examination of the constitutional power
of Congress to pass the act of 1850 has induced
a conviction that I am unable to surrender; and
independent of the peculiar provisions of that
act, which seemed to me at the time of its enact-
ment to characterize it as a law unfit for the ap-
proval of civilized and Christian lawgivers, it
has seemed clear 10 me, that when the several
States adopted, as a bond of common union, the
provisions of our Federal Constitution, it was
not within their intent to confer upon Congress
the power which such legislation involves.

But I go further back than the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Sherman] did yesterday, and would
be willing, altogether, to meet the gentleman
from Virginia, who discussed one portion of the
act of 1850, and discuss the question with him.
If the question were a new and open one now ;
if the right under the Constitution to pass any
law, either that of 1793 or that of 1850, could
be argued in the Congress of the United States,
I think that all constitutional lawyers must
come together upon that proposition. All that
can be said now is, that an early Congress, after
the adoption of the Constitution, passed an act;
that the Supreme Court have decided upon its

constitutionality ; that the courts of the various
States have sustained it ; that the legislation of
1850 is claimed to be in pursuance of it; and
because of the action of Congress and of the Ju-
diciary, that the question ought to be deemed
and taken to be settled.

That doctrine was not the doctrine which con-
mended itself to Mr. Buchanan, for he said, and
said well, that he was unwilling that the liber-
ties of the people should rest in the judicial tri-
bunals of the country. But when, in the course
of time, the judicial tribunals came to say that
the negro has no rights the white man is bound
to respect; when, going out of their proper
sphere, outside of the case before them, they
sought to pass upon a question of constitutional
law, then the President, forgetful of the past,
and of his early love and reverence for the lib-
erties of the people, is willing to endorse the doc-
trine of the Supreme Court, and to declare to us
that the question is settled, and that now no power
upon earth, Congressional, territorial, or judicial,
can affect the right of the slaveholder to carry
his slave within the Territories of the Union.

Sir, I do not care to stop now to discuss the
question of the constitutionality of that law. I
should not have felt myself called upon to refer
to it at all, except for the fact that several gen-
tlemen upon this side of the House have thought
it proper for them to say that, in their judgment,
the law was constitutional. The Republican
party, it is true, has nothing, as a party, to do
with it; but I felt unwilling to let this occasion
pass, and have it for a moment supposed that I
concurred in the opinion to which I have alluded.
Nor do I feel at all willing to rest under the sug-
gestions which have been made the other day, in
regard to the question of slavery in the District of
Columbia. I speak as a man, as an individual,
as the representative of no party ; but I love
this District with the affection of a child. Du-
ring my early years here, I learned my lesson
from books ; during my boyhood here, I listened
to the eloquence of men from the North and
South ; and I tell you it would be a proud and
happy day to me, could I aid the men of this
District to strike off the shackles from the slaves.
It would be a glad day to me, could I aid them
under the law, and under the Constitution that
covers us all, in that most happy work.

No, sir, I could not agree that I would not vote
for the abolition of slavery in this District. We
shall see that time, my friends. Ought we not
to do so, when the laws are brought to bear
here to suppress free speech? Were I to say
outside what I am saying here, I ask what se-
curity I have that I should not be put under
bonds to keep the peace ? I might be put under
bonds, were I to say in this capital of the nation
that I should not be afraid to defend John
Brown. I tell gentlemen such things cannot
happen without attracting the attention of the
whole land.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am admonished that my
time is passing. These compromise measures
were incorporated among our laws. How long
the apparent peace would have been real, no one
can determine. But we all know how the war
began again, and from what quarter the decla-
ration of hostilities was made. It was reserved
for the Senator from Illinois to marshal and to

conduct the army of the South to what seemed
a victory, but will prove a sacrifice of the party
which followed him so valiantly and fought so
well. It is only a question of time. But that
violation of honor and of compact, consummated
by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, fol-
lowed quickly, as it has been, by territorial out-
rages and by judicial or extra-judicial action, as
surely indicates that the party must die, as the
axe at the root of the settler's tree foretells its
fall. At once, the anti-slavery sentiment of the
whole nation was aroused. It was felt and pro-
claimed here in Congress, that no compromises
could be relied on. Those who had sustained the
action of 1850 declared themselves fully exon-
erated from that day, and political aspirants for
the power which the people hold in their own
gift, as well as the thinking and reflecting men
all over the land who sought no political ad-
vancement, united in condemning the Democratic
rescission of the line of freedom as a wanton
and gratuitous aggression of the Southern in-
terest, in defiance of a compact whose consid-
eration had been fully enjoyed.

From that moment, the Republican party came
into conscious life. The people demanded it.
And the people intend that the party shall do its
proper work. It is not a work of aggression, but
of defence. But no threat can intimidate, and
no denunciation can repress it. The simple
truth is, that the people of the United States de-
mand that the theory of this Government shall
be carried into practice. The theory of the Gov-
ernment is anti-slavery. The Government is pro-
slavery. The free people of the United States
demand that the rights of the slaveholder shall
be recognised only where the State laws recog-
nise them. The Government has declared that
those rights exist, without law ; that wherever
the master leads his slave upon the lands of the
United States, and within the Territories of the
Union, there the right3 of the master must be
protected under the Constitution. And, what is
still more bold and daring, the Southern Demo-
cratic statesman avows, and the Northern Presi-
dent declares, that no power upon the earth —
not the people within the Territory, nor the Con-
gress of the United States, nor any other tiibu-
nal, legislative or judicial — can do an act, or say
an effective word, to interfere with or diminish
the vested rights of the sovereigns of the land to
carry their vassal slaves where they will, within
the public lands or the organized Territories of
the Union. Nor is this the whole that must be
said now to the slave power of the Government
and its supporters.

The Southern party, sectional always, is not
content with argument. The Representatives
upon this floor have not stopped upon logic, or
rested upon the reason of their faith. Their
modest proposition 13 : " We are right, and you
are wrong. You must disband, no matter
whether you represent a majority or a minority
of the people of the United States ; but if you
do not disband, and let us keep the Government
and its patronage and power, we will shatter
the Union, and destroy, if we cannot govern,
the United States. The election of a Republican
President is of itself an act of such aggression
upon our vested rights that we will not submit to
the deep disgrace involved in its consummation."

Gentlemen, that remains to be proved. But
surely it is time to discontinue these threats of
disunion. T wonder if gentlemen remember
when these threats began. There is nothing in
them new or original. I will give you one of
early date. The following notice was published
in a Virginia paper, under date of July 31, 1795 :

" Notice is hereby given, that in case the treaty entered
into by that damned arch traitor, John Jay, with the British
tyruni, should bo ratified, a petition will be presented to the
next General Assembly of Virginia, at their next session,
praying that the said State may recede from the Union, and
bo under the government of one huudred thousand free and
independent Virginians.

" P. S. As it is the wish of the poople of the said State to
enter into a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, with
any State or States of the present Union, who are averse to
returning again under the galling yoke of Great Britain, the
printers of the (at present) United States are requested to
publish the above notification.

" Richmmd, July 31, 1795."

Mr. Chairman, the President of the United
States was at that time a Virginian. He knew
that words were sometimes thing3. He knew
that certain words a brother Virginian had re-
cently uttered, declaring certain inalienable
rights which man had received from God, were
words which were full of life, and could impart
life. But he was a man not of action only, but
of intuition ; and he knew that words were

sometimes vox et preterea nihil, and the treaty
was ratified which John Adams and Benjamin
Franklin and John Jay had made. And the
Union did not slide ; and the one hundred thou-
sand free and independent Virginians remained
within the Union, free and independent still.

Mr. Chairman, we all know something of the
history of John Jay, that arch traitor ! He was
a Bla -k Republican ; that is what John Jay was.
But Washington rather liked him; for he was
a good deal of a Black Republican also ! Wash-
ington offered him any office that he desired.
And it will not be forgotten that he was the
first man who filled the office of Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States.
There have been few men in that chair since
his appointment who have been his equals.
Indeed, the history of that court will show that,
with the exception of a very few years, that
office has been filled by three men — Jay, Mar-
shall, and Taney. Do you think that Jay would
have endorsed the message of the President to
us ? No, sir ; he was too arch a traitor, I fear.
Hear him :

" Little can be added to what has been said and written
on the subject of slavery. I concur in the opinion that it
ought not to bo introduced nor permitted in any of the
new States, and that it ought to bo gradually diminished
and finally abolished in all of them. To me, the constitu-
tional authority of Congress to prohibit the migration and
importation of slaves into any of the Suites does not appear
questionable. The first article of the Constitution specifies
the legislative powers committed to the Congress. The ninth
section of that article has these words : ' The migration or
importation of such persons as any of the now existing States
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the year 1808. But a tax or duty may be
imposed on such importations, not exceeding ten dollars for
each person.'

" I understand the sense and meaning of this clause to be,
that the power of the Congress, although competent to pro-
hibit the migration and importation, was not to be exercised
with respect to the then existing States (and those only)
until the year 1808 ; but that the Congress were at liberty
to make such prohibition as to any new State which might,
in the mean time, be established ; and further, that from
and after that period , they were authorized to make such
prohibition as to all the States, whether new or old. It will,
I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons in-
tended. The word slaves was avoided probably on account

of the existing toleration of slavery, and of discordancy with
the principles of the Revolution, and from the consciousness
of its being repugnant to the following positioas in the Dec-
laration of Independence : ' We hold these truths to he self-
evident — that all men are created equal ; that they are en-
dowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights , that
among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Sir, these doctrines of John Jay, as they pre-
ceded, so they will outlive, the modern doctrines
recemly declared by the successors of John Jay,
from the same chair.

.Mr. MAYXARD. Will the gentleman tell us
from what authority he is reading?

Mr. ELIOT. I am reading from what I believe
to be au extract from Mr. Jay's writings.

Mr. MAYXARD. But which of Jay's writings
is the extract taken from?

Mr. ELIOT. If the gentleman will call upon
me by-and-by, I will go into the library with him,
and endeavor to satisfy him.

Mr. MAYXARD. I was asking not for my own
individual benefit, but for the benefit of the coun-
try, which listens with pleasure to our speeches.
Mr. ELIOT. The gentleman says he does not
ask for his own benefit, but for the benefit of
others who are ignorant. Now, if the gentleman
knows where to find it, I will not stop at this time
to instruct these ignorant people while my friend
is himself quite familiar with the fact.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, when the freemen
in all the States of this Confederacy are preparing
to inaugurate a new Administration, it is of some
importance to determine by the record who the
men are that mean to enforce the principles of
the fathers, and who they are that disregard
and nullify them.

The Democatic party proposes to elect a Presi-
dent upon a Southern platform. The Republi-
can party proposes to elect a President upon a
platform that was consecrated by the founders of
the Government, and upon principles that have
been always recognised until desperate counsels
compelled revolutionary action, and political
heresies have come to be regarded a8 the truth
of history. There is Dot one doctrine of the Re-
publican party that does not find its origin in
the conftssed and recorded judgment of the wise
statesmen who decreed that it had been " the
pride and boast of America, that the rights for
which she contended were the rights of human
nature."

There is not one doctrine of the Southern party
which we deny, so far as it concerns the vital
question of human freedom, that does not conflict
with the declared faith of the very men who. are
vouched as their ancient teachers and guides.

Let us see how true these propositions are. It
is wholly in vain for politicians from the North
or the South to discharge their anathemas
against the historic scripture which has come
down to us from the prophets of the past.

Our earliest legislative anti-slavery society
was our first Continental Congress. On the 5ih
of September, 1774, they sought to prohihit the
import ard purchase of slaves after the first day
of December, 1774, and to decree, by an article
of their association, that they would discontinue
the slave trade, and neither be concerned in it
themselves, nor hire vessels nor sell commodi-
ties to such as were concerned in it. On the 19th
of April, 1784, the first Territorial report was
made. Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, and Mr. Chase,

of Maryland, were two of the three members of
the committee who made the report. By the
terms of that report, it was provided that, after
1800,

" No slavery nor involuntary Servitude should exist in any
of the said States, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes,
whereof the party shall have been convicted to be person-
ally guilty."

This report covered all cessions made and an-
ticipated, and called for a division of the whole
land into seventeen States, of which eight were
to be below the falls of the Ohio, and nine above
them. The report referred to them as " States,"
although then existing as Territories. Six States
and sixteen members voted for thi3 report, and
three States and seven members voted against
it. The Articles of Confederation required nine
States to vote affirmatively, and therefore the
proposition did not succeed. Mr. Jefferson, of
Virginia, and Mr. Spaight, of North Carolina,
voted in the affirmative. Three year3 after this,
the ordinance of Nathan Dane was passed, for
the government of the Northwestern Territories,
embodying the anti-slavery clause in the lan-
guage of Mr. Jefferson. It will be remembered
that, at this time,*North and South Carolina
and Georgia had not ceded the territories within
their boundaries to the United States.

During this same year, 1787, the Constitution
of the United States was adopted, and by the
several States it was afterwards ratified. No ar-
gument is required to prove that the statesmen
who assumed to control the question of slavery
in the Territories at that day were not the advo-
cates of the principles of the Cincinnati platform,
and could not have assented to the proposed
doctrines of 1860.

By the terms of the cessions made by Georgia
and North and South Carolina, the Territories
ceded were to remain slave Territories ; and
therefore, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama,
became tlave States. But no statesman of that
day contended that Congress had not the power
to protect the magnificent wilderness of the
Xorthwest from the baleful effects of domestic
slavery. That is the doctrine of Mr. Calhoun,
and of more recents converts to principles which
Mr. Benton prophetically called " firebrands."
It is one of the purposes of the Republican par-
ty to extinguish those firebrands forever.

Mr. Chairman, the territorial policy initiated
before the adoption of the Constitution in 1784,
and recognised by the action of 1787, was main-
tained unswervingly and unques'ioned until
about the period of Mr. Calhoun's resolutions,
in 1847. That policy has been confirmed by
sixty-three years of substantial national legisla-
tion, initiated by the South, approved, main-
tained, and enforced, by the South. But, in
these latter days, we of the Republican party are
notified that if we do not repudiate and abandon
that doctrine which lies at the foundation of our
political organization, and especially if we shall
make the doctrine incarnate in a Republican
President, we must carry on the Government, if
we can, without the countenance of Southern
men.

Now, sir, it i3 a fact that, by nearly all the lead-
ing statesmen, and. by every political Adminis-
tration, without a single exception, down to that
which preceded the Administration of Mr. Bu-

chanan, the policy of intervention for freedom
was enforced. No man can disprove that prop-
osition. The written history of the Government
declares its truth. In some form or other, the
right of Congress to act in the Territories to-
wards the restriction of human slavery will be
found to have been asserted. Before 1820, this
policy had been settled, and the constitutional
power upon which it rested had been repeatedly
recognised. And in that year, the compromise
which the South advocated, and which the North
resisted at first, and then yielded to, was effected,
under which Missouri became a State.

In 1793, the importation of slaves from abroad
into the Southern Territories was forbidden.

In 1803, the Territory of Indiana wa3 forbid-
den to hold slaves.

In 1804, restrictive legislation was applied to
the Territory now included in the State of Louis-
iana.

I do not propose to defend the principle upon
which the Missouri line was established in 1820.
It was one of the compromises which the North
made for the sake of peace, but out of which no
permanent peace has come.

Gentlemen upon the other side of the Houee
have declaimed, with earnestness, and with ap-
pearance of sincerity, against what they call the
aggressions of the North ; but they fail to show
upon what historic ground these charges rest.
From the beginning, the men of the North and
of the great West, which New England blood and
Northern institutions have so largely contributed
to form, have been opposed to the extension of
human slavery. Within their States they have
protected their own citizens, especially since the
act of 1850 made legislation necessary, by such
laws as they judged sufficient for the purpose.
Whether at any time any provision of any law
infringed in any respect upon the Federal Con-
stitution, or the laws fairly passed by Congress,
by virtue of powers conferred upon it, has always
and everywhere among us been held a fit sub-
ject for judicial decision. Upon a proper case,
legitimately brought before our courts, there
never, within my knowledge, has been hesitation
on the part of Northern judges to meet and to
decide upon the binding force of any statute
whose constitutional foundation had been called
in question. The liberty laws of Massachusetts,
and of other New England States, have been in-
voked in the discussions we have listened to,
and their provisions made the subject of fierce
and angry comment.

Mr. Chairman, this is not the tribunal before which I
choose to maintain the right of Massachusetts to enact any
laws that are found upon her records. That Commonwealth
Is not to be brought to the bar of Congress to answer for her
legislation. But what I mean to say is this — and because it
is an answer to the charge of aggression, I find it within tho
line of my argument to say it — that the example was set by
Southern States of passing State laws to protect Southern in-
stitutions and Southern citizens. They have no right to crit-
icise, in that respect, the action of the North. But, sir, when
the courts of the South are open, as those of the North al-
ways are, to the freest inquiry and the fullest latitude of ex-
amination ; when the rights of free discussion and of free
speech are acknowledged, not by word of mouth, but in
deed and truth, it will be time enough for us to compare and
to contrast with them our several laws. But whether a
particular State law is .wisely or unwisely enacted, at the
South or at the North, there is no logic nor common sense in
saying that thereby the institutions of other States are at-
tacked. The legislation of each State is for the citizens of
that State, and those who bring themselves within its juris-
diction.

But it is said that men in tho free States road and write,
and discuss questions of human freedom, and hold public
meetings, and pass resolutions ; and that the free press
spreads before the world the arguments advanced to prove
that men of whatsoever color are to be regarded as men,
and not as the beasts that perish. So they do. So they al-
ways have. So they always will.

The right of free discussion is claimed in every State within
our Coufedsracy. The exercise of that right must, perhaps
of necessity, be affected, qualified, controlled, iu a degree,
by the character of the social or domestic institutions within
the State. If a Southern Legislature judge it to be unsafe,
conducive to insurrectionary violence, to permit me to de-
clare publicly within that State the opinions which I hold
upon the subject of slavery, and shall pass a law prohibiting
such discussion within that State, I have no right to violate
that law. It is plain enough that free speech is, to that ex-
tent, controlled. If a Northern Legislature, for reasons of
State policy or necessity, should prohibit the dissemination
of doctrines subversive of the laws Of Gad, to that extent the
right of free speech would also be controlled. But if, in a
Northern State, a man should disobey, claiming that the law
itself was in violation of his constitutional lights, he would
act at his peril, but it would be a peril under tlie law. He
might discuss its constitutionality with perfect safety. If the
law were sustained, punishment would follow his olfence.
That he would expect. If not sustained, his right of free
speech would be vindicated. No gentleman will say, I tluulc,
that a like security would be afforded in a Southern State.
Well, sir, let it be so. Forbid discussion by law, if it be
thought best ; punish discussion by summary administration
of Lyuch law, if you will ; deny, if you choose, all appeals
by which the constitutionality of prohibitory laws may be
tested. But that must exhaust your power, and more than
exhaust the rightful exercise of' any power under the law.
But you cannot be permitted to control free discussion within
the limits of a free State, nor have you any right to hold that
discussion aggressive.

Why, sir, the institutions of freedom are not discussed
more fearlessly and boldly and uncompromisingly at the
North, than the practices of slavery are at the South. I have
a letter before me, published by Colonel Jacobs in a Mary-
land paper, to which I intended to make reference. He dis-
cusses what he calls the " white slavery " ol the free States.
No one objects to it. Let the " holy institution," the " or-
dinance of God," be discussed. Let tho curse of labor — of
free white labor — be exposed. But while the Southern slave-
holder talks, the Northern freeman will not remain dumb.

Sir, the Missouri compromise was the result of a political
contest, in which the South gained a victory — as she always
has — by the faithless action of Northern men. But when
Missouri had been gained, and Arkansas was secured, and
all the benefits derived to the South which that line had
promised, nothing was left to freedom but the unsettled re-
gions of Nebraska and Kansas. The wicked attempt to take
from the free laborer the right to live upon that soil, and to
work for himself and for his children without tho contact and
the taint of slave labor at his side, was an aggression upon
the North, and upon the free institutions of the land, which
stands out in unapproachable meanness upon the annals of
our Congressional history. No wonder that, from the polit-
ical turmoil of that legislation, the Republican party sprang
into existence. One leading idea compelled its formation.
Such has been the case at all times. Parties cannot be forced
into life. They grow themselves out of events, and because
the people call for them.

So it has been with every party formed since the founda-
tion of our Government. The Federalist, the Democratic, the
National Republican, the Whig, the Free Democratic, the
Anti-Masonic, the American, ami now the Republican, have
rested mainly, each in turn, upon one distinctive principle.
When a party has gained power, and has the responsibility
of conducting the Government, it must adopt a certain
course of policy. The platform of the Republican party is
simple, comprehensive, and national. It proposes to restrict
slavery, and to administer the Government upon principles
nationalized by its ablest statesmen. Democratic success i6
slavery extension. The Kansas bill of Judge Douglas, and
the Dred Scott decision of Judge Taney, cover the ground.
We have been asked, why should we restrict slavery ? The
answer has been given over and over again, because it is
wrong in itself, because it is the source of wrong in others,
because it is a blight upon the land which tolerates it, be-
cause it justly brings our nation into reproach, because it is
against the spirit of our Constitution and the policy of its
framers. You say, restrain slavery within its present limits,
and it must die. Very well ; let it die. Why should we
contribute of our substance to preserve its life ? But you
say, further, with singular inconsistency, let us alone.
What has the North to do with slavery ? Why do you
discuss it in pulpit and in pew and in parlor, in Senate and
in street? If it is a curse, it afflicts us, and not you.

Stop there. If you are content to let slavery remain where
it now is, the terrible irony of the question might go without

rebuke. But you are uot. You press it upon us. Senator
Douglas opens the Territory ; Judge Taney carries in the
slave ; President Bui hanan forbids us to say be must come
out. And yet, you demand to know what the North has to
do with slav< ry. This Territorial policy of the new Democ-
racy opens to the No th the whole question ol slavery. We
must discuss it. You demand to know what the North has
to do wiih slavery,

In the time remaining to me, my answer must bo concise
and brief, 1 bad hoped to discuss this subject more at
length. Sir, slavery extension will give undue and oppres-
sive political ^ower to the new states, to be exerted against
the interest of every free State. Why should the non-slave-
holding States consent tii.it new States should be made from
free territory, where live slaves shall represent three free
men in political power ? The inequality ot representation is
iiovt great enough. We are now the official associates of
twenty gentlemen, and more than that, whose chairs would
be vacant here if it were not lor the slaves of the South I
The honorable gentleman from New York [Sir. Clark] re-
ferred, some time ago, to the fact that he represented on this
floor the most wealthy constituency in the country. His
constituents own ships and houses, stocks, manufacturing
establishments, mines, and banks. But they own no ne-
groes, and therefore their property cannot give to them po-
litical 'power. With $1,000,000 in property, not one vote the
more is created ! The humblest and poorest freeman wields
as great political power at the North as the man who counts
by millions his vast possessions. One slaveholder, with
$1,000,000 invested in slave property — valuing the human
chattels at $t,0()0 each — will represent the political power of
six hundred men besides himself! That is to say, politically,
this slavebolding millionaire represents quite a village of
free white men " rolled into one.''

Now, sir, we of the North can see no roason why this un-
just inequality should be increased by the creation from free
territory 01 slave States. Wuen the subject of'' equalization
of representation " was first considered m the Constitutional
Convention, Mr Martin, of Maryland, in discussing this
three-fifths question, said :

" As live staves, in the apportionment of Representatives,
' were reckoned as equal to three freemen, such a permis-
' sion amounted to an encouragement ot the slave trade.
• Slaves Weakened the Union, which the other parts were
' bound to protect ; the privilege of importing them was,
' therefore, unreasonable. Such a feature in the Constitution
' was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and
' dishonorable to the American character.''

Mr. Mason, during the same discussion, remarked that —

" Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor
' despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent
' the immigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen
' a country. They produce a pernicious effect on manners.
' Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring
' the judgment of Heaven on a country."

Upon what fair ground are Northern men invoked to with-
hold discussion? How can it be argued that the North has
nothing to do with slavery, when the Democracy of the South
would carry slavery into all the Territories, to be at some
future day organized into slave States, with the political
power now guarantied to them ?

Mr. Chairman, the extension ot slavery into the Territories
will drive oe.t from them free labor. But free labor comes
mainly from the free States. Their men and women desire
no contact with the slave, or with the labor of the slave. To
dishonor labor is to degrade them. This thing must not bo
done ; and it cannot be done, unless faithless counsels and
timid men shall make another compromise, and secure for
the interests of freedom another defeat.

Sir, the tree States own the land within the Territories, in
common with the South. But if free labor is driven out, the
value of their lands is greatly reduced ; the standard of ed-
ucation fails ; the material interests of the people decline,
and their moral condition is lowered.

The honorable gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Love] said,
the other duy, as I find his argument reported :

" But I propose to test this moral question by another
1 rule. I hold it to be true that the best rule by which to
' judge of the moral condition of any people, is the facilities
' which that people have for religious instruction. Now, sir,
' I suppose that the correctness of this, rule will uot be dis-
' puted, for it is the rule upon which i3 founded every effort
' to evangeiize the world."

Well, sir, let us apply that rule for a single moment. I
wish that I had time to do so thoroughly. In one small
county in Massachusetts — Hampshire county — whore the
total population, as given by Mr. Do Bow, was, in 1850, less
than thirty-six thousand, white and colored, it appears, from
a report recently published by the American Board of Com-
missioners of the Foreign Mission Society, that the contribu-
tions to the American Bjard from that one county, during the
past year, were $6,219.40.

During the same time, from fourteen slave States, inclu-

ding tho District of Columbia, the contributions to the same
Board are slated to be $8,121.03 ; that is to say, the single
county contributed to that cause within $1,903 as much as
all those Suites '. Facilities for instruction are best determined
by results produced.

In a volume which I find in our Congressional library,
purporting to be written by the Rev. Mr. Tower, the author
inserts an extract from a report drawn up by a Southern
ecclesiastical body. Here is thai testimony :

" The influence of the negroes upon the moral and religious
' interests of the whites is destructive in tho extreme. We
1 cannot go into special detail. It is unnecessary. We make
' our appeal to universal experience. Wo are chained to a
' putrid carcass ! It sickens and destroys us. We have a
' millstone hanging about the neck of our society, to s.nk us
■ deep ui the s -a ol vice. Our children are corrupting from
' their infancy, nor can we proven! it. Many an anxious
• parent, like the missionaries in foreign lands, wishes his
' children could be brought beyond the reach of the corrupt-
' ing influence of the depraved heathen. Nor is this influence
' confined to mere childhood. If that were all, it would be
' tremendous. But it follows into youth, into manhood,
1 and into old age. And when we come directly into contact
' with their depravity in the management of them, then
' come temptations, and provocations, and trials, that un-
1 searchable grace only can enable us to endure. In all our
1 intercourse with thein, we are undergoing a process of in-
' tellectual and moral deterioration ■ and it requires almost
' superhuman efforts to maintain a high standing, either for
' intelligence or piety."

1 otfer now, as bearing upon the moral and political aspect
of this question of slavery extension, the following statistical
proofs. But first, let me refer to the language used by the
gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Love :]

" As to the other point, whether slavery is a political evil,
' I hold it to be legitimately discussable. Not that Congress
' has any power over it, but because, as yet, we are citizens
1 of a common country, and should consult together in a
' proper temper and spirit, as to what is best for us as a na-
' tiou. If, upon a full investigation of the tacts, we of the South
' should become satisfied that slavery is a great political
1 evil, it would be our duty, as patriots and good citizens, to
' get clear of it as soon as possible. What is a political evil ?
' 1 have given this subject some reflection, sir ; and the best
' definition which I can fix in my mind is, that a political
' evil is something which, from its very nature, must impair
' our national reputation abroad, or diminish our material
' strength at home."

That is a fair and manly statement ; and I am content
with the definition of what is a " political evil," and ear-
nestly commend the fullest investigation of the facts.

Here is a statement taken from Da Bow's Census, by Mr.
Tower. It concerns Pennsylvania and Virginia. What
cause has operated to elevate the one, and to depress the
material strength of the other ? If slavery has thus affected
a Commonwealth like Virginia, which was the " Old Domin-
ion," where God has lavished with unsparing hand His
richest gifts of climate and of soil and of inland stream, has
not the North something to say when the master would lead
his siave into our common lauds?

Virginia contains 01,352 square miles.

Pennsylvania contains 46,000 " "

Both, at first, were slave States.

Virginia has a shore line of six hundred and fifty-four
miles. Pennsylvania has ocean access through a river and
bay channel.

WHITE POPULATION.

Fenmi/lrania. Virginia.

1790 ¥ 424,099 442,115

1800 580,094 514,280

1 S20 1 ,017,094 603,087

ls;;0 1 ,309,900 694,300

1840 l,<i~(M15 740,853

1S50 2,258,160 894,800

What has produced this result ?

There are in I'enniylvania 8,623,619 acres of improved
land. In Virginia there are 10,360,135 acres.

The average yield per acre in Virginia is not one-half that
Pi nsytvaaia.

Tho average wheat crop in Pennsylvania is 15 bushels per
acre ; and in Virginia 7 bushels.

The average corn crop in Pennsylvania is 20 bushels ; and
in Virginia IS bushels.

The average rye crop in Pennsylvania is 14 bushels ; and
in Virginia 5 bushels.

The relative value of land is what must bo expected from
these facts.

The value of the improved lands in Pennsylvania is
$407,S76,099 ; and in Virginia, $216,401 ,543.

The ten million acres in Virginia tire worth littlo more
than half the eight million in Pennsylvania.

Private property owned in Pennsylvania is $729,144,390 ;
and in Virginia, $391,646,430.

8

I now offer some facts respecting sixteen free States, con-
taining an area of six hundred and twelve thousand six hun-
dred square miles, and fifteen slave States, containing an
area of eight hundred and fifty-one thousand four hundred
and fifty square miles.

These facts are collected, in part, from Mr. De Bow's Cen-
sus and in part from Mr. Helper's book, which certainly
contains much statistical information illustrating the ques-
tion we are discussing :

SIXTEEN FREE STATES. FIFTEEN- SLAVE STATES.

Population.

■n,.hitP ...13,233,670 White 6,1S4,477

«,,« 196,116 Free black 228,138

IStgr0e Slave 3,200,364

1855.

Tonnace .... 4,252,615 Tonnage 855,511

Fxnorts .$167,520,693 Exports $107,480,688

Imports'.'.'.'. ....$236,847 ,810 Imports $24,586,528

Annual Product — 1850.
Manufactures. . .$842,586,058 Manufactures. . .$165,413,027

Invested $430,240,051 Investment $95,029,879

Operatives 780,576 Operatives 161,733

1 1857.

Miles of railroads 17,855 Miles of railroads 6,859

1S55-

Bank capital .... $230,100,340 Bank capital .... $102,079,000

Whole Postage.

Collected $4,670,725 Collected $1,553,198

Co;

it of mails 2,608,295 Cost of mails 2,385,953

Balance in favor of
Department $2,062,430

Massachusetts —

receipts $532,184

cost 153,091

New York —

receipts 1 ,383,157

cost 481,410

Fennsvlvania —

receipts 583,013

cost 251,833

Balance against De-
partment $832,'

55

Alabama —

receipts $104,514

cost 226,816

Georgia —

receipts 149.063

cost 216,003

South Carolina —

receipts 91,600

cost 192,216

1850.

Public schools 62,483

Teachers 72,621

Pupils 2,769,901

Public libraries 14,911

Books 3,888,234

Public schools 18,507

Teachers 19,307

Pupils 581,861

Public libraries 695

Books 649,577

1850.
Newspapers and periodicals Newspapers and periodicals

published 1 ,790 published 704

Copies yearly... .334,146,281 Copies yearly 1,038,693

Native White Adults— -1850.

Illiterate 248,725 Illiterate 493,026

Population 13,233,670 Population 6,184,477

Churclie.-. value.. $67 ,773,477 Churches, value.. $21 ,074,581
1856.

Patents issued 1 ,929 Patents issued 268

Contributions — 1855.

Bible cause $319,667 Bible cause $68,125

Tractcause 131,972 Tractcause 24,7-5

Missions 502,174

Colonization 51,930

Taxes-
New York —

acres of land.... 30,080,000
valued at... $1,112,138, 136
per acre

SOUTHERN CITIES.

Baltimore 260,000 $102,053,859

New Orleans 175.000 91.188.195

St. Louis 140,000 63,000^000

Charleston 60,000 36,127,751

Louisville 70,000 31,500,000

Richmond 40,000 20,143,520

Norfolk 17,000 12,000,000

Savannah 25,000 11,999,015

Wilmington 10,000 7,850,100

Per capita.
$731

650
1,510

425

422
1,527

967

505
1,288

$408
621
450
602
450
503
705
480
785

Missions 101,934

Colonization 27,618

-1856.
North Carolina —

acres of land 32,450,560

valued at $98,800,636

per acre 3.06

The following facts are taken from original letters, which
will be found in Helper's Crisis, and concern nine cities at
the North and South, in 1856-'57 :

NORTHERN CITIES.

Name. Population. Wealth.

New York 700,000 $511 ,740,492

Philadelphia 500,000 325,000,000

Boston 165,000 249,162,500

Brooklyn 225,000 95,S00,440

Cincinnati 210,000 88,810,734

Chicago 112.000 171,000,000

Providence 60/100 58,064.516

Buffalo 90.000 45,474.470

New Bedford 21 1000 27 ,047 ,600

But, Mr. Chairman, if free labor is driven out from the

Territories, and slave labor occupies its place, slave laws
must be enacted to protect that labor and its owner.

In that fact the North is deeply interested. The free col-
ored citizens of Northern States cannot travel in Southern
States without danger of imprisonment and sale. I know not
whether this is true in all the slave States ; but I believe it
to be so.

I have had occasion, quite recently, to know something of
the laws of Maryland in this respect. A free colored citizen
of Massachusetts was imprisoned there for travelling through
the State without the proofs of his freedom upon his person.
He wras at the mercy of the law. After an imprisonment of
two months, upon payment by his friends of the costs of
his imprisonment into the treasury ot Maryland, he was re-
leased. While in jail, some friend induced the British con-
sul to interfere for him, under the belief that the man him-
self was a subject of Great Britain. But the man, not know-
ing that the paw of the British lion was a sure defence, while
the talon of the American eagle closed upon the victim, as-
serted his true ciiizenship, and remained in prison until the
laws were vindicated and the prison door was opened.

This may be necessary ; it may be right ; the North can-
not prevent it. But surely it is not hard to see what the
North has to do with slavery. Why, sir, we have every-
thing to do with it, if the doctrines of Mr. Buchanan and the
Southern Democracy are to be enforced. And because their
doctrines are claimed to be true ; because it is the purpose
of that party, which now holds the power of this Govern-
ment, to enforce those doctrines, if they are permited to re-
tain that power, this Republican party is here now in Con-
gress, and before the people, to declare what are the consti-
tutional rights of freedom, and what must be the constitu-
tional restraints of slavery.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican party, from the necessities
of the case, must, succeed, if it be dot faithless to itself. The
Southern Democracy will not bo content until they have
driven to the wall the entire conservative element upon
which they have heretofore relied at the North. Eyery step
they take, every arrogant demand they make, every new
claim of right they institute and contend for, drives from
their support an army of men at the North, and disconcerts
and embarrasses at the South more than venture at the
present time to express their opinions openly. Why, sir,
if every slave could be put afar nflr, so that no discussion
could reach his ear, and free discussion could be had, let us
come among you, and stand upon your hill-sides, as you
may stand on Plymouth rock, to announce and to discuss and
to demonstrate political truths, and it would not be a twelve-
month before, in nearly everj' Southern State, our Republi-
can party would find more supporters than the Democracy
of 1S60 will find in its most favored Northern State.

Mr. Chairman, it has been declared here, by some of the
ablesf speakers from the South, that the success of our
party — which seeks to do nothing that may not be clearly
done within the protection and under the authority of that
Constitution which they profess to admire and venerate —
will compel them to withdraw from this Union of sovereign
States. I have no desire to discuss a statement which always
when made assumes the attitude of a threat. But do you
not see, gentlemen, that to make such threat is to render
certain of success, beyond the peradventuro of defeat, the
party you threaten ? The Republican party proposes to as-
certain whether the Union is not strong enough to sustain an
Administration which will rest upon the theory of our Con-
stitution, and upon the foundation which the fathers laid.

You may shatter, if you can, this fair fabric of our free-
dom ; you may make desolate the temple, and strike down
the statue ; but the terrible responsibility shall rest upon
yourselves.

In the earlier ages of the world, within one of the old
temples of Memnon,a colossal statue had been erected ; and
it was said that daily , in the morniug, as the rays of the sun
fell upon the image, sounds of sweet music went from it to
inspirit and to encourage the votaries at the shrine. But an
Egyptian king caused the statue to be shattered and the
music to be hushed, that he might find whence the strains
proceeded, and whether the priests within the temple had
not deceived the people. Sir, upon this laud our lathers
reared their temple, and within it the colossal statue of Lib-
erty has stood. Not in the morning alone, but at high noon
and at set of sun, day after day, sounds of heavenly har-
mony have gone from it, calling upon the oppressed and
down-trodden to come and to be free. Rude hands have
been laid upon that temple ; hard Southern blows have fall-
en upon the statue ; but when, if ever, the power shall come
that will shatter the edifice and lay the colossal image low,
in order that the mystery of the music raiy be revealed, it
will be found, I believe, in the providence of God, that other
hands will rebuild and reconsecrate them both ; but no
Washington, nor Jefferson, nor Madison, nor Hamilton, nor
such like artificers, will be commissioned for the work, until
that institution, which dishonors man and debases labor, and
steals from the stooping brow the sweat which should earn
his bread, shall be forever overthrown.
[Here the hammer fell.]